Public Action Foundation

Beyond Payday Loans:

Consumer Installment Lending in Illinois

Authors Tom Feltner and Sarah Duda March 2009

  

 

                                            

Acknowledgements Woodstock Institute and the Public Action Foundation are grateful to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the F.B. Heron Foundation, the Woods Fund of Chicago, the Chicago Community Trust, and the Richard H. Driehaus Foundation for providing funding for this report. The authors would like to thank Danielle Barnes, Beverly Berryhill, Kathryn Biggins, Lynda Delaforgue, Patrick Keenan-Devlin, Patricia Woods-Hessing, Brian Matthews, Dory Rand, Geoff Smith, and Anthony Zou. About the Authors Tom Feltner is the Policy and Communications Director at Woodstock Institute. Tom is responsible for the organization's consumer lending policy and research, and media relations. Since 2003, Tom has worked to shape the payday loan, automobile title loan, and refund anticipation loan policy debate by documenting the worst abuses in the industry and proposing meaningful reforms. He has also presented Woodstock Institute's research and policy recommendations at national and regional conferences and has organized numerous local workshops on community reinvestment policy and practice. Tom Feltner received a B.A. with high honors in Philosophy and Sociology from DePaul University and a Masters of Urban Planning and Policy from the University of Illinois at Chicago. Sarah Duda is the Research and Project Associate at Woodstock Institute. While at Woodstock, she has contributed to research and written analysis on various issues concerning housing policy and access to fairly priced financial products and services. Sarah’s primary interests include economic development theory, urban policy, and the development of equitable strategies for community reinvestment.

Sarah Duda received her B.A. from Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio and a Master of Urban Planning and Policy from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

About Woodstock Institute Woodstock Institute is a Chicago-based policy and advocacy nonprofit that works locally, nationally, and internationally to promote community reinvestment and economic development in lower-income and minority communities. The Institute's goals are to increase the assets of targeted families and communities and, in particular, increase the supply of affordable rental and owner-occupied housing, and promote small business development, and access to fairly priced and appropriate financial services. About the Public Action Foundation The Public Action Foundation is the research and education arm of Citizen Action/Illinois. Citizen Action/Illinois is the state's largest public interest organization committed to creating social change both in Illinois and across the nation. Citizen Action/Illinois works to make the voices of everyday citizens heard in the councils of state government and in corporate boardrooms. The primary accomplishment of the organization and its research and education foundation is the building of a permanent, multi-issue, multi-constituency force capable of affecting public policy at local, state and national levels through issue advocacy, policy development, grassroots organizing, and coalition building.

  

 

                                            

Introduction In Illinois, discussions around establishing additional consumer protections for small-dollar, short-term credit often stall at the point of defining the substantive differences between the very short-term high-cost loans with a small number of payments, known as payday loans, and the longer-term but often equally expensive (in terms of finance charges) products, known as installment loans, that both fall under CILA.1 Past research has shown that some lenders in Illinois that previously offered very short-term, high cost loans have modified their products substantially, and in effect, avoided many of the consumer protections required by state law.2 Because the public nature of the debate has largely focused on payday loans, little research attention has been directed to installment loans. As such, much of the information about installment lending under CILA is anecdotal. By collecting detailed, loan level data on non-payday lenders that currently operate under the Consumer Installment Loan Act, this report will provide a clear picture of the terms and conditions, borrower demographics, and default characteristics of installment loans than is currently available to policymakers, regulators, or the public. About the Consumer Installment Loan Act and Outstanding Concerns Small-dollar, short-term lending in Illinois is authorized and regulated by the Consumer Installment Loan Act.3 Lenders licensed by the Act are permitted to originate non-real estate secured consumer installment loans up to $40,000, repayable in no more than 181 months (15 years).4 These broad criteria permit a wide range of loans, from small-dollar, short-term forms of credit commonly referred to as payday loans, to loans secured by the title to an automobile, to check-solicited lines of credit. The Consumer Installment Loan Act does not establish any other limits on principal, term, interest rate, or underwriting criteria for loans covered by the Act, and CILA loans are not subject to the statewide annual interest cap of nine percent set by the Illinois Interest Act.5 The broad range of activities permitted by CILA, combined with a lack of consumer protections available to borrowers of particularly high-cost forms of credit permitted by the Act, is an ongoing concern of consumer advocates, policymakers, and the media.6 In particular, CILA is viewed by advocates as a safe-haven for lenders seeking to evade consumer protections, such as the interest rate limits and ability to repay requirements outlined in the 2005 Payday Loan Reform Act (PLRA). Additionally, CILA itself permits several contentious loan features that affect the total cost of the loan. The act permits the use of the Rule of 78ths, a method of computing earned interest that is highly disadvantageous to the borrower. It also allows lenders to finance single premium credit insurance into the loan principal.7 While single premium credit life insurance pays off a loan in the event a borrower dies, becomes disabled, or is

1See Feltner, Thomas, and Sarah Duda, The Illinois Payday Loan Loophole. Chicago, IL: Woodstock Institute, April 2008.

2 Feltner, Thomas, Hunting Down the Payday Loan customer: The Debt Collection Practices of Two Payday Loan Companies. September

2006.

3205 ILCS 670

4205 ILCS 670/15

5815 ILCS 205

6See Illinois Payday Loan Reform Act Ill. P.A. 94-13, Franklin, Stephen, 2008. Loophole lets lender skirt law, group says. Chicago Tribune, April 25, and Nave, R. L. 2008. The Payday Loan Trap. Illinois Times, April 10.

7205 ILCS 670/16

  

 

                                            

involuntarily terminated from his or her job, critics often consider these types of products as unnecessary and expensive.8 Previous efforts to regulate small-dollar, short-term loans In the recent past, there have been several efforts to modify CILA and establish consumer protections that address some or all of the issues discussed above. In 2001, modifications to the administrative rules implementing CILA established several consumer protections for some forms of small-dollar, short-term credit, as well as loans secured by automobile titles. These rules provided a set of additional consumer protections available to borrowers taking out payday loans with terms of less than 30-days, and automobile title loans with terms of less than 60-days.9 In addition to mandating provisions that prevent back-to-back refinances of small-dollar, short-term forms of credit by requiring a “cooling off” period between loans, the rules required lenders to underwrite loans based on a borrower’s gross income.10 However, some companies simply extended the terms of their products in order to circumvent these consumer protections. The most recent, successful effort to establish consumer protections for borrowers taking out small-dollar, short-term loans came in 2005 with the passage of the Payday Loan Reform Act.11 The PLRA applies to loans with terms of 120-days or less, with interest rates exceeding 36 percent that are either secured, or used as a method of payment, a post-dated check, wage assignment, or an authorization to directly debit a transaction account.12 The PLRA also increases disclosures and requires that lenders provide a fee-free repayment plan to borrowers unable to make regular payments.13 Like the 2001 rule changes, the Act requires that a lender verify a borrower’s ability to repay the loan by weighing the principal against the borrower’s gross monthly income. The act also mandates a “cooling off” period between the repayment of one loan and the origination of another. Lenders wishing to originate short-term payday loans of less than 120-days at interest rates exceeding 36 percent are required to hold licenses under the PLRA, in place of or in addition to their existing CILA licenses. A list of all lenders in Illinois by license type is provided in Appendix A-C. In April 2008, a report by Woodstock Institute and the Public Action Foundation found that some payday lenders were evading the consumer protections of the PLRA by exploiting a loophole in the law’s definitions.14 The report found that one of the largest payday lenders in Illinois modified the terms and conditions of its products immediately after the passage of the Payday Loan Reform Act. To escape the Act’s consumer protections, the company developed a new, high-cost product with a term exceeding the 120-day threshold established by the Act. In so doing, this lender was able to offer virtually identical payday products while circumventing consumer protections mandated by PLRA.

8Larson, Michael. 2001. Lenders dropping single-premium credit insurance, but borrowers still need to be on guard. Bankrate.com. July 26.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mtg/20010726a.asp.

938 Ill. Admin. Code 110 1038 Ill. Admin. Code 110.370 11Ill. P.A. 94-13 12815 ILCS 122/2-10

13815 ILCS 122/2-40

14See Feltner, Thomas, and Sarah Duda. 2008. The Illinois Payday Loan Loophole. Chicago, IL: Woodstock Institute, April.

Page 2

  

 

                                            

The Purpose of This Report This report is designed to identify the types of products offered by consumer finance companies in Illinois in order to inform efforts to establish consumer protections for loans made under the Consumer Installment Loan Act. The prospect of the elimination of the 120-day threshold has raised concerns among consumer finance companies that claim to offer lower-cost, longer-term loans that, as a result may be unfairly classified as payday loans. However, little is known about how these two products differ because the public debate has focused almost exclusively on payday products. Given this lack of information, it is difficult to determine whether or not the controversial terms and conditions, such as an extremely high finance charges, ancillary fees, and repeated refinances common among payday loans are also common among the loans made by consumer finance companies. By collecting detailed, loan level data on non-payday lenders that currently operate under the Consumer Installment Loan Act and analyzing the data segmented by product type to reflect the diversity of loan types within CILA, this report will identify the terms and conditions, borrower demographics, and default characteristics of installment loans. This report analyzes a sample of loan default cases filed by lenders in 2007. Since the collection of all court cases filed by Illinois consumer finance companies would be prohibitive, this report uses a sample of 342 cases, or about 6 percent of the total number of cases filed. A discussion of the sample method and the data collected is provided in Appendix A and the distribution of court cases and sampled loans is provided in Appendix D. Consumer finance companies licensed under CILA are provided by Illinois legislative district and can be found in Appendix F. Sampled loans were placed into one of five categories for analysis: short-term installment loans, used car loans; retail installment loans; personal lines of credit; and check-solicited lines of credit (Table 1). The following discussion includes a brief overview of each product, a detailed description of the terms and conditions of loans in each category, and borrower demographics. Category 1: Short-Term Installment Loans Over half (54 percent) of surveyed loans were short-term installment loans. These closed-ended loans repayable in two or more substantially equal installments had the smallest principals and the highest interest rates of the five categories of loans reviewed. Principals ranged from $175 to $17,247 with a median principal of $1,397. Interest rates ranged from 5 percent to 1,142 percent with a median interest rate of 95 percent. High-cost, short-term installment loans had a median term of nearly nine months (266 days), typically structured as monthly payments averaging $168. Refinancing these loans to extend the term or receive additional money was common in this category of loan. In 28 percent of surveyed loans, the lender recorded information relating to the refinancing of the original loan into a new agreement. Of these cases, the median amount refinanced into a new loan was $577, or 38 percent of the original loan principal and interest. This indicates that borrowers typically refinanced approximately one third of the way through the original loan. Twenty seven percent of installment lenders represented in the sample survey used the sum of digits or “Rule of 78ths” method for calculating earned interest. The Rule of 78ths is an archaic method largely replaced as a form of calculating earned interest by methods that more fairly distribute principal and

Page 3

  

 

                                            

interest as a percentage of each payment.15 The Rule of 78ths maximizes the percent of interest income a lender receives in the event of a loan prepayment, loan acceleration, or refinancing. The Rule of 78ths method for calculating earned interest is prohibited for mortgage and consumer loans with terms of 61- months or more.16 Forty six percent of installment lenders represented in the sample survey also financed single-premium credit life, disability, and unemployment insurance into the loan principal. These features are sold to the borrower as insurance against an inability to repay caused by death, disability, or unemployment. Single-premium credit life, employment, and disability insurance raise the cost of an already high-cost installment product when financed as part of the loan because the borrower is charged interest on the cost of the premiums. The survey shows that the typical borrower of a short-term installment loan was female (60 percent), living in a lower-income (51 percent) and predominately minority (55 percent) community, and earning a median net salary of $34,277.17 Borrowers who were taken to court after defaulting on high-cost, short-term installment loans were also likely to work for large employers either in the private sector (55 percent) or public sector (45 percent) with over one-third of borrowers employed by the United States Postal Service. These borrowers were also concentrated in the health care (18 percent) and public administration (11 percent) industries. Borrowers defaulting on high-cost, short-term installment loans were likely to have a complaint filed against them by the lender 334 days (about 11 months) after the date that the loan was originated. Typically, damages claimed by the lender were 169 percent of the amount originally borrowed. Borrowers defaulting on this type of loan were unlikely to appear for their scheduled court date, with 45 percent of cases resulting in ex-parte default judgments. The average amount awarded to the lender averaged $2,226 or 100 percent of the damages claimed by the lender, significantly more than the amount of the loan. In six cases, a bankruptcy was noted. Category 2: Used Car Loans Used car loans are closed-ended installment loans that are typically arranged through a car dealership. These loans were used to finance the purchase of used cars, ranging from recent models to models up to 14 years old, with a median age of seven years. Borrowers provided an average down payment of $1,000 (or about 25 percent of the loan) and financed the remaining balance. Used car loans represented ten percent of loans included in the sample survey. The loans in this category were typically larger and longer-term than the high-cost, short-term installment loans sampled. Principals were based on the purchase price of the used car less any down payment and ranged from $1,565 to $41,149, with a median principal of $4,606. Loan terms ranged from ten months to six years, with a median term of nearly two years, typically structured as 24 monthly payments averaging $281. Interest rates for high-cost used car loans ranged from 15 percent to 177 percent, with a median

15Lazarony, Lucy. 2002. Rule of 78 -- Watch out for this auto loan trick. Bankrate.com. January 1st. http://www.bankrate.com/

brm/news/auto/20010827a.asp.

1615 U.S.C. § 1615 17Lower-income is defined as 80 percent or less of the median family income for the Chicago metropolitan region and predominately

minority is defined as a minority population of 50 percent or more.

Page 4

  

 

                                            

interest rate of 36 percent. This median rate was considerably higher than the national average for a three-year used car loan of 7.11 percent.18 The typical borrower of a high-cost used car loan was male (56 percent), living in a lower-income (58 percent) predominately minority (65 percent) community, and earning a median net salary of $18,412. These borrowers were employed by large employers in the private sector (88 percent), most commonly in manufacturing (25 percent), or accommodation and food service (19 percent). Borrowers defaulting on high-cost used car loans were likely to have a complaint filed about 34 months after the date that the loan was originated. Typically, damages claimed by the lender represented 69 percent of the original principal. This suggests that the outstanding balance was decreased because the borrower made a number of scheduled payments or because the automobile was repossessed. Of the loans surveyed, 12 percent of cases resulted in ex-parte default judgments because the borrower did not show up to court. The average amount awarded to the lender averaged $3,365 or 100 percent of the damages claimed by the lender. Category 3: Retail Purchase Loans Retail purchase loans are closed-ended loans used to finance a retail purchase, primarily furniture. Typically, financing is arranged at the point of purchase, but funded and serviced by a third party lender. Of the loans surveyed, 11 percent were retail purchase loans. Loan principals ranged from $556 and $8,757, with a median principal of $1,508. The interest rate ranged from 15 percent to 49 percent, with a median interest rate of 29 percent. Retail purchase terms ranged from five to six years with a median term of two years, typically structured as monthly payments of $120. For retail purchase loans, there were roughly equal numbers of male and female borrowers - 47 percent and 53 percent, respectively. The median net income for borrowings, taking out retail purchase loans, was $19,626. Retail purchase loans contained the largest number of loans taken out by borrowers living in lower-income (60 percent) predominately minority (78 percent) neighborhoods. Borrowers who were taken to court after defaulting on retail purchase loans were most likely to be employed by large employers in the private sector (73 percent), typically in educational services (20 percent), health care (20 percent), and retail trade (20 percent). Borrowers defaulting on retail purchase loans had, on average, a complaint filed 19 months after the date that the loan was originated. Borrowers were also unlikely to appear for their scheduled court date, with 44 percent of cases resulting in ex-parte default judgments. The average amount awarded to the lender was $1,727 or 100 percent of the damages claimed by the lender. Category 4: Personal Lines of Credit Personal lines of credit are revolving or function as lines of credit with payment amounts dependent on the total principal. Of the surveyed loans, 12 percent were personal lines of credit. Loan principals ranged from $550 to $25,000, with a median principal of $9,000. Interest rates for personal lines of credit ranged from 14 to 29 percent, with a median interest rate of 28 percent. Because this category of loan was open-ended, loan term information was not included in the loan documents.

18Anon. 2008. Auto Loans | Car Loan Rates | Financing for Used and New Cars. October 2. http://www.bankrate.com/brm/rate/

auto_home.asp?refi=0.

Page 5

  

 

                                            

The typical personal line of credit borrower was a female (55 percent) earning a net annual income of $28,163. Borrowers using personal lines of credit are most likely to live in a predominately white community (57 percent) and a middle- or upper-income community (64 percent). Borrowers who were taken to court after defaulting on personal lines of credit were likely to work for large employers in the private sector (64 percent), although the most common occupation was in public administration (21 percent). Borrowers defaulting on personal lines of credit had, on average, a compliant filed against them 26 months after the date that the loan was originated. Typically, damages claimed by the lender represented 137 percent of the original principal, suggesting a long-term of interest accumulation. Borrowers defaulting on this type of loan were also unlikely to appear for their scheduled court date, with 64 percent of cases resulting in ex-parte default judgments. The average amount awarded to the lender equaled, on average, $12,478 or 100 percent of the damages claimed by the lender. A bankruptcy was noted in three cases. Category 5: Check-Solicited Lines of Credit Check-solicited lines of credit are offers of credit mailed directly to a borrower. When these checks are deposited, the borrower automatically enters into an agreement with the lender to repay the face value of the check in fixed monthly payments, with additional credit available as the principal is repaid. Of the surveyed loans, 13 percent were check-solicited lines of credit. Check-solicited lines of credit principals had principals larger than high-cost installment loans and charged a lower rate of interest. Loan amounts for check-solicited lines of credit ranged from $2,000 to $7,500, with a median principal of $5,000. Interest rates were not apparent on the check. There was little variation in interest rates, which ranged from 20 percent to 50 percent, with a median interest rate of 30 percent. The typical borrower of a check-solicited line of credit was a female (57 percent) earning a median net salary of $27,036 and living in a middle- or upper-income (58 percent) predominately white (57 percent) community. Borrowers who were taken to court after defaulting on check-solicited lines of credit were likely to be employed by large employers in the private sector (80 percent), typically in health care (20 percent) and manufacturing (20 percent). Borrowers defaulting on check-solicited lines of credit were likely to have a complaint filed 31 months after the date that the loan was originated. Typically, the amount of damages claimed by the lender represented 139 percent of the original principal. Of the loans surveyed, 59 percent resulted in ex-parte default judgments because the borrower did not show up to court. The average amount awarded to the lender averaged $8,618 or 100 percent of the damages claimed by the lender. In three cases, a bankruptcy was noted. Key Findings 1. The rates and the borrower demographics vary significantly across the various loan products

offered by CILA licensees. Additionally, high-cost, short-term installment loans (category 1) offer small-dollar, short-term, high-cost credit with similar terms and conditions observed in products offered by payday lenders. With small principals, considerably higher interest rates, and frequent refinancing, these products showcase many of the same concerning features previously associated only with payday products.

Page 6

  

 

                                            

2. Borrowers using short-term installment loans are predominately lower-income, with a median net income of $34,277 or 89 percent of the Chicago region 2000 median family income. Borrowers using personal lines of credit, or check-solicited lines of credit, had slightly lower median net incomes of $28,163 and $27,036, respectively.

3. Used car loans carried extremely high interest rates despite large down payments, and were

widely used by very low-income borrowers. Borrowers who took out loans to finance the purchase of a used automobile had the lowest median net incomes observed in the sample, or $18,412 – just 54 percent of 2000 Chicago area median income.

4. Many installment CILA lenders use the “Rule of 78ths” to calculate earned interest in the event

of loan prepayment or acceleration. The Rule of 78ths is an archaic method of calculating unearned finance charges in the event of prepayment. It is prohibited in several other states and is prohibited under federal law for loans of 61 months or longer.

5. The majority of borrowers across loan types were employed by large companies, predominately

in the private sector. However, significant percentages of borrowers were public sector employees. For example, over one-third of installment borrowers in the sample were employees of the United States Postal Service.

Page 7

  

 

                                            

Table 1. Loan Default Court Cases Filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007

Loan Information by Loan Type 

 Loan Characteristics  

Installment Loans 

Used Car Loans Furniture Loans 

Personal Line of Credit 

Check‐Solicited Line of Credit 

Median Loan Principal………..………..……  $1,397  $4,606  $1,508  $9,000  $5,000 Principal Range (High, Low) ……….………  $17,247, $175  $41,149 , $1,565  $8,757, $556  $25,000 , $550  $7,500 , $2,000 

Median Interest Rate (APR) …….….……...  95%  36 %  29%  28%  30 % 

APR Range (High, Low)………………………  1,142% , 5%  177% , 15%  49% , 17%  29% , 14%  50% , 20% Median Finance Charge………….….….…..  $611  $2,040  $463  n/a  n/a Finance Charge as Percent of Principal….  40%  45%  76%  n/a  n/a 

Median Monthly Payment Amount.......  $168  $281  $120  n/a  n/a     As a percent of monthly gross income.  6%  16%  5%  n/a  n/a 

Median Term in months (months)….……  8.9 (266 )  24 (720)   24, (720)  n/a  n/a 

Term Range in months (high, low)……….  181, 3  72, 10  60, 6  n/a  n/a 

Automobile Loan Characteristics         

Age of vehicle (years)…………………………  n/a  7  n/a  n/a  n/a 

Median Down Payment ……………...……..  n/a  $1,000  n/a  n/a  n/a     As a percent of Principal…………..…….  n/a  25 %  n/a  n/a  n/a 

Characteristics of Refinanced Loans 

Percent of Sample……………………………  28%  n/a  n/a  n/a  n/a 

Median Amount Refinanced……….………  $577  n/a  n/a  n/a  n/a Rollover as a Percent of Principal…………  38%  n/a  n/a  n/a  n/a 

Borrower Characteristics 

Median Gross Income………………………..  $36,309  $21,031  $26,678  $35,505  $34,100 Median Net Income…………….……………  $34,277  $18,412  $19,626  $28,163  $27,036  Male Borrowers (percent)…………………  74 (40% )  19 (56 %)  17 (47%)  19 (45%)  19 (43%) Female Borrowers (percent)………………  112 (60%)  15 (44%)  19  (53%)  23 (55%)  25 (57%) > 50% Minority Community……………….  55%  65%  78%  43%  33 % Lower‐Income Community………………..  51%  58%  60%  36%  32% 

Default Characteristics       Days from origination to complaint………  334  1,028  570  770  940 Cases with Ex‐Parte Default Judgments..     45%  12%  44%  64%  59% 

Damages Claimed as a Percent of Principal…………………………………………..  169%  69%  118%  137%  139% Judgment as a Percent of Damages……..  100%  100%  100%  100%  100% Bankruptcy Proceedings were Noted……  6  0  0  3  3 About the Sample Loan Default Cases (percent of total)…..  186 (54%)  34 (10%)  36 (11%)  42 (12%)  44 (13%) 

Percent of APRs > 36 percent………………  65%  50%  11%  0%  2% Cases with wage garnishments (percent of total)……………………………… 

110 (59%)  16 (47%)  15 (42%)  14 (33%)  15 (34%) 

Lenders using Rule of 78ths………………  27%  0  0  0  0 Lenders using Credit Insurance.............  46%  0  0  0  0 

Page 8

  

 

                                            

Policy Recommendations This report documents the types of loans offered by Illinois consumer finance companies licensed under CILA for the purposes of better understanding an industry for which there is currently no publicly available data. The product segmentation provided in this report offers an opportunity to clearly delineate the product differences within CILA and in doing so equips policymakers with the knowledge needed to regulate these loans and protect consumers from unfair and unaffordable terms. The findings in this report indicate that there are many similarities between short-term installment products and payday products. These similarities are most pronounced when considering the terms and conditions and borrower demographics of small-dollar, short-term installment loans offered by CILA lenders. While short-term installment loans share many characteristics with payday products, other CILA products such as retail installment loans, used auto loans, personal lines of credit, and check-solicited lines of credit are functionally dissimilar to payday products and should be excluded from attempts to regulate short-term installment loans. Nevertheless, Illinois consumers would benefit from the broadly applied disclosures and consumer protections outlined in Section 2. Section 1: PLRA type protections are needed for small-dollar, short-term installment loans made by CILA lenders Small-dollar, short-term installment loans (Category 1 loans) made under CILA should be subject to similar consumer protections similar to those currently required by the Payday Loan Reform Act, that: 1) Set a statewide cap on finance charges for small-dollar, short-term installment loans – Lenders

holding only CILA licenses made loans with a median interest rate of 95 percent, with interest rates ranging from as little as 5 percent, to as much as 1,142 percent. In addition to lowering the cost of borrowing, establishing a reasonable fee cap will remove the financial incentive to make longer-term loans solely to avoid the consumer protections of the Payday Loan Reform Act.

2) Ensure a net tangible benefit for refinanced loans – Many consumer installment lenders conduct

underwriting to ensure that borrowers are able to meet the repayment terms of the loan, but many do not. Establishing a maximum monthly payment of 10 percent of a borrower’s gross monthly income will prevent the worst abuses, while preserving access to credit. For example, the typical high-cost installment loan borrower making $34,000 and taking out a $1,600 loan paid only 6 percent of his or her gross monthly income, well below the proposed 10 percent limit.

3) Ensure dual-licensed lenders are able to offer both CILA and PLRA products with strong

consumer protections – While many installment lenders offer rates comparable to, or exceeding those charged by payday lenders, 35 percent of the loans in this study were made at rates less than 36 percent. Allowing lenders to offer both PLRA and CILA products with different terms and at different rates protects a lender’s ability to offer a range of products suited to customer needs.

4) Establish protections from abusive refinancing – Back-to-back, abusive refinancing of short-term

loans forces borrowers into a cycle of high-cost debt that is difficult to escape. Limiting back-to-back refinancing prevents lenders from “rolling over” high-cost debt and not applying payments to principal reduction. Likewise, permitting upfront origination fees for new loans and lower origination fees for refinanced loans reduces the incentive to keep borrowers in back-to-back short-term loans.

Page 9

  

 

                                            

5) Prohibit use of the Rule of 78ths – Using the Rule of 78ths to calculate interest payments front loads interest charges at the beginning of the loan. For a 12 month loan with interest payments calculated using the Rule of 78ths, a borrower would pay 54 percent of the total interest in the first four months of the loan, compared to 33 percent of the total interest paid in the first three months if the pre-computed method is used. This issue is particularly relevant given the high number of observed installment loans that were refinanced.

Section 2: Additional consumer protections that should be required for all CILA Products 1) Prohibit single premium credit life, disability, or unemployment insurance from being financed

into a loan – In recent years, many of the largest finance companies have ceased offering single premium credit life, disability, and unemployment insurance on home mortgage loans. However, it is still commonly available for short-term consumer loans. By financing the entire premium, borrowers are forced to purchase insurance for the entire life of the loan, whether or not they refinance the loan part way through the original term. Likewise, the entire premium is also rolled into the principal balance, substantially increasing the applicable finance charges.

2) Check-solicited loans should prominently feature a “typical” interest rate or a range of

probable interest rates on the face of the check. Like most credit card solicitations, the disclosures provided with check-solicited lines of credit do not disclose an interest rate. Since many of these offers are made to pre-screened borrowers based on credit history, these types of products should include a typical interest rate or interest rate range to clearly illustrate the total cost of borrowing and to allow borrowers to more easily compare different credit options.

Conclusion High-cost, short-term installment loans made by CILA licensees share many similarities with types of consumer credit that have been the subject of previous reform efforts. With the shortest-term and highest interest rate of the five types of loans examined by this report, there is little evidence to suggest that this category of loan should be excluded from legislation or regulation that attempts to address key concerns with products offered by companies that currently, or previously, offered payday loans and have extended the terms of those products to avoid regulation by the Payday Loan Reform Act. Finally, while several of the practices of lenders making other types of loans raise significant concerns, these types of loans are functionally different from high-cost, short-term installment loans and, as such, should not be in included in legislation or regulation addressing short-term installment loans.

Page 10

  

 

                                            

Appendix A. Companies Holding a CILA License

Licensee Company CILA 

Licenses % of Total 

Cumulative % 

 Licensee Company (con’t) 

CILA Licenses 

% of Total 

Cumulative % 

American Gen. Fin. Services of Ill.  88  10.8  10.8    Genesis Fin. & Payment Systems, Inc.  2  0.2  83.0 CitiFinancial Services, Inc.  62  7.6  18.4    H.E.R.R., Ltd.  2  0.2  83.3 World Finance Corp. of Illinois  61  7.5  25.9    HSBC Credit Center, Inc.  2  0.2  83.5 SFC of Illinois, L.P.  57  7.0  32.9    JEL Enterprises Corp.  2  0.2  83.8 Personal Finance Company LLC  36  4.4  37.3    Nationwide Loans LLC  2  0.2  84.0 Wells Fargo Financial Illinois, Inc.  36  4.4  41.8    Preferred Capital Lending, Inc.  2  0.2  84.3 Heights Finance Corporation  35  4.3  46.1    Quick Cash of Illinois, Inc.  2  0.2  84.5 Beneficial Illinois, Inc.   32  2.9  49.0    Sir Finance Corporation  2  0.2  84.8 State Finance Co.  21  2.6  51.6    Sun Cash of Wisconsin, LLC  2  0.2  85.0 Title Cash of Illinois, Inc.  20  2.5  54.1    U.S. Auto Title Lenders, Inc.  2  0.2  85.3 Household Finance Corporation III  19  2.3  56.4    A to Z Credit Lenders, Inc.  1  0.1  85.4 Sun Loan Company Illinois No. 2  19  2.3  58.7    AAA Cash Advance, Inc,  1  0.1  85.5 TitleMax of Illinois, Inc.  18  2.2  60.9    AAA Cash Loans, Inc.  1  0.1  85.6 CMK Investments, Inc.  16  2.0  62.9    Advance Case Loans LLC  1  0.1  85.7 Tower Loans of Illinois, Inc.  10  1.2  64.1    Advance LLC  1  0.1  85.9 Dollars Today, Inc.  9  1.1  65.2    Advance Loan Service, Inc.  1  0.1  86.0 Sun Loan Company Illinois, Inc.  7  0.9  66.1    Advance Loans, Inc.  1  0.1  86.1 Affinity Credit Services, Inc.  6  0.7  66.8    Advance Paycheck  1  0.1  86.2 Consumer Financial Services Corp.  5  0.6  67.4    Ameristar Financial Company, LLC  1  0.1  86.4 Riverside Finance, Inc.  5  0.6  68.1    ASAP Cash Loans, Inc.  1  0.1  86.5 Sordi, Inc.  5  0.6  68.7    Aurora Finance Corporation  1  0.1  86.6 Turnage Group, Inc.  5  0.6  69.3    Auto Title Lenders, Inc.  1  0.1  86.7 U.S. Cash Advance Illinois, L.L.C.  5  0.6  69.9    Auto Title Loan Store of Illinois, LLC  1  0.1  86.9 WinK Development LLC  5  0.6  70.5    AZ Loan Company, Ltd.  1  0.1  87.0 Affinity Lending Inc.  4  0.5  71.0    Bell Leasing Brokerage, L.L.C.  1  0.1  87.1 All American Cash Advance, Inc.  4  0.5  71.5    Budget Cash Advance  1  0.1  87.2 Banner Finance of Illinois, Inc.  4  0.5  72.0    Budget Finance Corporation  1  0.1  87.3 Brother Loan & Finance Company  4  0.5  72.5    Calzante Investments, Inc.  1  0.1  87.5 Capital Solutions Investments II  4  0.5  73.0    Capital Cash Advance, Inc.  1  0.1  87.6 Emergency Loan Center, Inc.  4  0.5  73.5    Capital Financial Services, Inc.  1  0.1  87.7 EZ Cash, Inc.  4  0.5  74.0    Cash 2 Go at Rockford  1  0.1  87.8 Fast Cash, Inc.  4  0.5  74.4    Cash 2 Go, Inc.  1  0.1  88.0 First American Cash Advance, Inc.  4  0.5  74.9    Cash Advance Now  1  0.1  88.1 Lighthouse Financial Group of Ill.  4  0.5  75.4    Cash Direct, Inc.  1  0.1  88.2 AAA Checkmate, L.L.C.  3  0.4  75.8    Cash Loans Today, Inc.  1  0.1  88.3 

Ardmore Finance Corporation  3  0.4  76.2    Cash To Go at Gurnee, Inc.  1  0.1  88.5 

Banner Finance of S.A., Inc.  3  0.4  76.5    Cash To Go at Round Lake Beach  1  0.1  88.6 

Citizens Finance Company  3  0.4  76.9    Cash To Go at Wheeling  1  0.1  88.7 

Illinois Catalog Sales, Inc.  3  0.4  77.3    Check Please of Sparta, Inc.  1  0.1  88.8 

Kessler Partners, LLC  3  0.4  77.6    Client Funding Solutions Corporation  1  0.1  88.9 

Magic Cash, Inc.  3  0.4  78.0    Collinsville Quick Cash, Inc.  1  0.1  89.1 

Manor Resources, LLC  3  0.4  78.4    Community Lenders, Inc.  1  0.1  89.2 

Port Enterprises, Ltd.  3  0.4  78.7    Cook Cash Store  1  0.1  89.3 

Title Loan Company  3  0.4  79.1    Cosmat Loan Company  1  0.1  89.4 

Turner Acceptance Corporation  3  0.4  79.5    CQC, Inc.  1  0.1  89.6 United Fast Cash Inc.  3  0.2  79.9    Dreamaker Finance LLC  1  0.1  89.7 A‐1 Cash Loans, Inc.  2  0.2  80.1    E Z Payday Advance, L.L.C.  1  0.1  89.8 Advance Cash Express, Inc.  2  0.2  80.3    Equity Financing Corporation  1  0.1  89.9 Affordable Cash Advance, Inc.  2  0.2  80.6    Equity Lending, Inc.  1  0.1  90.0 B & B Investment Group Inc.  2  0.2  80.8    Eugene V. Randall  1  0.1  90.2 Cash Advance, Inc.  2  0.2  81.1    Evergreen Financial LLC  1  0.1  90.3 Cash‐N‐Go Inc.  2  0.2  81.3    Express Title & Payday Loans, Inc.  1  0.1  90..4 Central Illinois Loans, Inc.  2  0.2  81.6    E‐Z Case Loans, LLC  1  0.1  90.5 Citicash Loans Corp.  2  0.2  81.8    Fa$t Fund$, Inc.  1  0.1  90.7 CLT Financial Services, Inc.  2  0.2  82.1    Family Title Loans, Inc.  1  0.1  90.8 E Z Money of Illinois Inc.  2  0.2  82.3    Fast Cash In A Flash, Inc.  1  0.1  90.9 Easy Money Express Co.  2  0.2  82.6    Fast Cash U.S.A., Inc.  1  0.1  91.0 Fast Cash of Illinois, Inc.  2  0.2  82.8    Future Finance Company Inc.  1  0.1  91.2 

Page 11

  

 

                                            

Appendix A. Companies Holding a CILA License (cont’d)

Licensee Company (con’t) CILA 

Licenses % of Total 

Cumulative % 

 Licensee Company (con’t) 

CILA Licenses 

% of Total 

Cumulative % 

Great American Finance Co.  1  0.1  91.3    Universal Lenders, Inc.  1  0.1  98.4 Great Western T.V. Inc,  1  0.1  91.4    Uptown Cash, L.L.C.  1  0.1  98.5 Greater Chicago Finance Co.  1  0.1  91.5    V‐Max, Incorporated  1  0.1  98.6 Guido Family, Inc.  1  0.1  91.6    Bolingbrook I, LLC et City I, LLC  1  0.1  98.8 Harris Finance LLC  1  0.1  91.8    WashU Partners ‐ Calumet City   1  0.1  98.9 Harris Loan & Mortgage Corp.  1  0.1  91.9    WashU Partners ‐ Markham I  1  0.1  99.0 Harrisburg Quick Cash, Inc.  1  0.1  92.0    WashU Partners ‐ Niles   1  0.1  90.1 High Priority Loans, LLC  1  0.1  92.1    WashU Partners ‐ Western I  1  0.1  90.3 Highland Quick Cash, Inc.  1  0.1  92.3    Wise Finance of Pekin  1  0.1  90.4 I Need Cash Inc.  1  0.1  92.4    Wise Finance of Peoria  1  0.1  90.5 Illinois Motor Credit, Inc.  1  0.1  92.5    Wise Finance of Springfield, LLC  1  0.1  90.6 Irvine Finance, LLC  1  0.1  92.6    Wise Finance of Sterling, LLC  1  0.1  90.8 John F. Weese  1  0.1  92.8    Wise Finance, LLC   1  0.1  90.9 Joseph Enterprises LLC  1  0.1  92.9    Workforce Financial Inc.  1  0.1  100.0 Kahuna Prepaid Solutions Inc.  1  0.1  93.0    Total  814     KB Investments, Inc.  1  0.1  93.1           King Auto Title Loans, Inc.  1  0.1  93.2   Lawsuit Lending, LLC  1  0.1  93.4    Appendix B. Companies Holding a PLRA License Lloyd's Plan, Inc.  1  0.1  93.5   Marathon Management Co.  1  0.1  93.6   

Licensee Company CILA 

Licenses % of Total 

Cumulative % 

Marion Quick Cash, Inc.  1  0.1  93.7    Cash America Net of Illinois  1  33.3%  33.3% Midwest Money Store Inc.  1  0.1  93.9    Taxes & More  1  33.3%  66.7% Morgan Stanley Credit Corp.  1  0.1  94.0    Today's Payday  1  33.3%  100.0% Mountain Partners, LLC  1  0.1  94.1    Total  3     

National Investment Partners, LLC  1  0.1  94.2         Oak Financial Acceptance, Inc.  1  0.1  94.3   Oasis Legal Finance, LLC  1  0.1  94.5    Appendix C. PLRA and CILA Licensees Patient Option, Inc.  1  0.1  94.6   Peoples Credit, Inc.  1  0.1  94.7   

Licensee Company  CILA Licenses 

% of Total 

Cumulative % 

Petty Cash of Illinois Inc.  1  0.1  94.8    Advance America  82  15.7  15.7 Plaintiffs' Lenders, Inc.  1  0.1  95.0    Great Lakes Specialty Finance, Inc.  54  10.4  26.1 Portfolio Management Partners  1  0.1  95.1    Illinois Title Loans, Inc.  54  10.4  36.5 Pronto Finance Group, LLC  1  0.1  95.2    Cottonwood Financial Illinois, LLC  46  8.8  45.3 R & L Webb Enterprises, Inc.  1  0.1  95.3    The Payday Loan Store of Illinois  43  8.3  53.6 Ramos Financial, Inc.  1  0.1  95.5    Americash, Loans, LLC  41  7.9  61.4 Redbird Financial LLC  1  0.1  95.6    Check Into Cash of Illinois, LLC  32  6.1  67.6 SMP Advance Funding, LLC  1  0.1  95.7    Midwest Title Loans, Inc.  24  4.6  72.2 South Loop Financial Services, Inc.  1  0.1  95.8    QC Financial Services, Inc.  23  4.4  76.6 St. Louis Financial Group, LLC  1  0.1  95.9    Title Lenders, Inc.  21  4.0  80.6 Suisse Bancorp  1  0.1  96.1    America’s Financial Choice, Inc.  20  3.8  84.5 Sun Legal Finance, Inc.  1  0.1  96.2    Cashland Financial Services, Inc.  18  3.5  87.9 Swansea Quick Cash, Inc.  1  0.1  96.3    One Iron Ventures, Inc.  9  1.7  89.6 The Cash Zone  1  0.1  96.4    ACE Cash Express, Inc.  8  1.5  91.2 The Loan Store Inc.  1  0.1  96.6    Devon Financial Services, Inc.  7  1.3  92.5 The Money Lenders, Inc.  1  0.1  96.7    Fast Cash Advance, Inc.  7  1.3  93.9 The MoneyPlace of Effingham  1  0.1  96.8    Short Term Loans LLC.  7  1.3  95.2 The MoneyPlace of Marion  1  0.1  96.9    Illinois Lending Corporation  6  1.2  96.4 The MoneyPlace of Mattoon  1  0.1  97.1    A‐All Financial Services, Inc.  4  0.8  97.1 The MoneyPlace of Mt. Carmel  1  0.1  97.2    Fiat Financial Money Center LLC.  4  0.8  97.9 The MoneyPlace of Mt. Vernon  1  0.1  97.3    Tri‐State Financial Services, Inc.  4  0.8  98.7 The MoneyPlace of Paris  1  0.1  97.4    A Plus Title Loans, Inc.  1  0.2  98.8 The MoneyPlace of Salem  1  0.1  97.5    A‐All Payday Loans, Inc.  1  0.2  99.0 The MoneyPlace of Vandalia  1  0.1  97.7    Charles Ray  1  0.2  99.2 Total Finance, LLC  1  0.1  97.8    Check Now Inc.  1  0.2  99.4 U S Loans LLC  1  0.1  97.9    Community Financial Loan Co., Inc.  1  0.2  99.6 U. S. Cash Advance Illinois, L.L.C.  1  0.1  98.0    Forest Park Loan Company, Inc  1  0.2  99.8 United Cash Express, Inc.  1  0.1  98.2    Insta Cash, Inc.  1  0.2  100.0 Universal Cash Express, Inc.  1  0.1  98.3    Total  521     

Page 12

  

 

                                            

Figure 1:   Distribution of Consumer Lending Licenses 

Appendix D. Sampling Method and Description of the Data

This report analyzes a sample of loan default cases filed by lenders to collect data on the type of loans originated, the repayment terms and conditions of those loans, the process and outcome of the case, borrower demographics, and income information for those borrowers subject to a garnishment order. Since the collection of the entire universe of court cases filed by Illinois consumer finance companies would be prohibitive, this report uses a sample of 342 cases or about 6 percent of the total number of cases filed. In order to identify the universe of Illinois consumer finance companies for this survey, licensee data collected by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation was used to cross-reference licensees that hold a CILA license, with those that hold a Payday Loan Reform Act license. Companies that held only PLRA licenses, or those that held both PLRA and CILA licenses were excluded (Figure 1). A list of companies licensed under the PLRA, CILA, or both the PLRA and CILA is provided in Appendix A-C.

The resulting list of consumer finance companies was then cross-referenced with companies operating under the same name that had filed court cases in the Circuit Court of Cook County’s civil division between January 1 and December 31, 2007. Based on the results of this search, it was determined that 30 companies had filed 5,485 court cases within the date range of this survey (see Appendix D). Each of these 5,485 cases was then assigned a random index number. Beginning with the lowest index numbers, loan default cases requested were reviewed, with a target sample size of 342. Loan default cases that were filed, but did not contain a Truth in Lending Statement or loan contract, were excluded.

Because these data are drawn from court cases, by definition, they only include loans that are in default. As a result, they do not capture the entire universe of installment loans made in Illinois. The summary statistics listed in Table 1 should be interpreted with this in mind. Based on this sampling method, information on the type of loan, the terms and conditions of repayment, and certain borrower characteristics were collected from the Truth in Lending Statement contained in the court filing. Information on the legal process and outcome, if any, was collected using the court entered orders. Information on the borrower’s employer and any income or salary information was collected using the garnishment order, when available. For most cases that included a garnishment order, income information was provided as the gross and net income per pay period. Pay period income information was annualized based on the pay period frequency for the purpose of determining annual income. Some employers disclosed only the borrower’s gross annual salary and whether or not there were any existing garnishments. For these cases, gross annual income was provided and net income was estimated using the average tax payment for borrowers with similar annual incomes.

PLRA Licenses 

(3) 

CILA  and PLRA 

Licenses (521) 

CILA Licenses (821) 

Figure 1: Distribution of Consumer Lending Licenses

Source: Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation

Page 13

  

 

                                            

Appendix E. Sample Distribution of Court Filings by Company

Licensee Company  Cases  Percent  Sample  Percent 

Household Finance Corporation III          694  12.7  46  14.0 Great American Finance Co.                 599  11.0  35  10.2 Turner Acceptance Corporation              527  9.6  24  7.0 Advance LLC                                517  9.4  ‐  ‐ Brother Loan & Finance Company             517  9.4  34  9.9 Beneficial Illinois, Inc.                  507  9.2  54  15.7 Sir Finance Corporation                    450  8.2  32  9.3 CitiFinancial Services, Inc.               437  8.0  50  14.5 AAA Checkmate, L.L.C.                      395  7.2  28  8.1 Wells Fargo Financial Illinois, Inc.       364  6.6  12  3.5 Universal Lenders, Inc.                    138  2.5  16  4.7 Greater Chicago Finance Company            117  2.1  4  1.2 Cash Loans Today, Inc.                     60  1.1  3  0.9 Future Finance Company Incorporated        37  0.7  ‐  ‐ Bell Leasing Brokerage, L.L.C.             30  0.6  2  0.6 Advance Cash Express, Inc.                 24  0.4  ‐  ‐ Auto Title Lenders, Inc.                   24  0.4  ‐  ‐ Client Funding Solutions Corporation       10  0.2  2  0.6 Nationwide Loans LLC                       9  0.2  ‐  ‐ Citizens Finance Company                   5  0.1  ‐  ‐ U.S. Auto Title Lenders, Inc.              4  0.1  ‐  ‐ Advance Case Loans LLC                     3  0.1  ‐  ‐ Advance Loan Service, Inc.                 3  0.1  ‐  ‐ Advance Loans, Inc.                        3  0.1  ‐  ‐ Cash 2 Go, Inc.                            3  0.1  ‐  ‐ SMP Advance Funding, LLC                   3  0.1  ‐  ‐ Suisse Bancorp                             2  0.0  ‐  ‐ Illinois Motor Credit, Inc.                1  0.0  ‐  ‐ Oasis Legal Finance, LLC                   1  0.0  ‐  ‐ Personal Finance Company LLC               1  0.0  ‐  ‐ Total  5,485  100%  342  100% 

Page 14

  

 

                                            

Appendix F. Companies by Legislative District

Dist.  Representative  Count    Dist.  Representative  Count    Dist.  Senator  Count 1  Susana A Mendoza………..  2    60  Eddie Washington………….  7    1  Antonio Munoz……………………..  2 2  Edward J. Acevedo…………  0    61  JoAnn D. Osmond………….  0    2  William Delgado……………………  1 3  Luis Arroyo…………………..  1    62  Sandy Cole……………………  6    3  Mattie Hunter……………………….  6 4  Cynthia Soto…………………  0    63  Jack D. Franks……………….  5    4  Kimberly A. Lightford…………….  9 5  Kenneth Dunkin…………….  5    64  Michael Tryon……………….  5    5  Rickey R. Hendon………………….  5 6  Esther Golar………………….  1    65  Rosemary Mulligan………..  2    6  John J. Cullerton……………………  6 7  Karen A. Yarbrough……….  3    66  Mark Walker……..………….  1    7  Heather Steans……………………..  1 8  LaShawn K. Ford……………  5    67  Charles E. Jefferson………..  6    8  Ira I. Silverstein……………………..  6 9  Arthur L. Turner…………….  4    68  Dave Winters………………..  12    9  Jeffrey M. Schoenberg……………  0 10  Annazette Collins…………..  1    69  Ronald A. Wait………………  7    10  James A. DeLeo…………………….  5 11  John A. Fritchey…………….  5    70  Robert W. Pritchard……….  7    11  Louis S. Viverito…………………….  6 12  Sara Feigenholtz……………  1    71  Mike Boland………………….  5    12  Martin A. Sandoval………………..  1 13  Greg Harris…………………..  1    72  Patrick J Verschoore………  10    13  Kwame Raoul……………………….  1 14  Harry Osterman…………….  0    73  David R. Leitch………………  7    14  Emil Jones, Jr………………………..  3 15  John D'Amico………………..  4    74  Donald L. Moffitt…………..  12    15  James T. Meeks…………………….  5 16  Lou Lang………………………  2    75  Careen M Gordon…………..  4    16  Jacqueline Y. Collins………………  1 17  Elizabeth Coulson………….  0    76  Frank J. Mautino……………  9    17  Donne E. Trotter……………………  3 18  Julie Hamos………………….  0    77  Angelo Saviano……………..  6    18  Edward D. Maloney……………….  19 19  Joseph M. Lyons……………  2    78  Deborah L. Graham……….  2    19  M. Maggie Crotty………………….  15 20  Michael P. McAuliffe………  4    79  Lisa M. Dugan……………….  4    20  Iris Y. Martinez……………………..  4 21  Michael Zalewski…………..  2    80  George Scully, Jr……………  2    21  Dan Cronin…………………………..  8 22  Michael J. Madigan………..  4    81  Renée Kosel………………….  2    22  Michael Noland…………………….  11 23  Daniel J. Burke………………  1    82  Jim Durkin…………………….  1    23  Carole Pankau………………………  10 24  Elizabeth Hernandez………  0    83  Linda Chapa LaVia…………  10    24  Kirk W. Dillard………………………  5 25  Barbara Flynn Currie………  1    84  Tom Cross…………………….  4    25  Chris Lauzen…………………………  8 26  Williams Burns.……………..  0    85  Emily McAsey..……………..  8    26  Dan Duffy…………………………….  4 27  Monique D. Davis…………..  1    86  Jack McGuire………………..  4    27  Matt Murphy………………………..  9 28  Robert Rita…………………..  1    87  Bill Mitchell…………………..  5    28  John J. Millner………………………  3 29  David E. Miller……………….  5    88  Dan Brady…………………….  12    29  Susan Garrett……………………….  4 30  William Davis………………..  0    89  Jim Sacia………………………  5    30  Terry Link…………………………….  14 31  Mary E. Flowers…………….  1    90  Jerry L. Mitchell…………….  9    31  Michael Bond……………………….  6 32  Andre Thapedi………………  0    91  Michael K. Smith……………  14    32  Pamela J. Althoff…………………..  10 33  Marlow H. Colvin……………  2    92  Jeha`n  A. Gordon .………..  18    33  Dan Kotowski……………………….  3 34  Constance A. Howard…….  1    93  Jil Tracy………………………..  11    34  Dave Syverson………………………  18 35  Kevin Joyce…………………..  9    94  Richard P. Myers……………  5    35  J. Bradley Burzynski……………….  14 36  James D. Brosnahan……….  11    95  Mike Fortner…………………  1    36  Mike Jacobs………………………….  15 37  Kevin A. McCarthy…………  8    96  Darlene Senger..……………  4    37  Dale E. Risinger…………………….  18 38  Al Riley…………………………  7    97  Jim Watson…………………..  8    38  Gary G. Dahl…………………………  13 39  Maria Antonia Berrios…….  3    98  Gary Hannig………………….  10    39  Don Harmon…………………………  9 40  Deborah Mell…….………….  1    99  Raymond Poe……………….  14    40  Toi Hutchinson………..……………  6 41  Bob Biggins…………………..  5    100  Rich Brauer…………………..  9    41  Christine Radogno…………………  3 42  Sandra M. Pihos…………….  4    101  Robert F. Flider……………..  9    42  Linda Holmes……………………….  13 43  Keith Farnham.……………..  6    102  Ron Stephens………………..  7    43  A. J. Wilhelmi………………………..  13 44  Fred Crespo………………….  4    103  Naomi D. Jakobsson………  10    44  Bill Brady……………………………..  17 45  Franco Coladipietro………..  1    104  William B. Black…………….  9    45  Tim Bivins…………………………….  14 46  Dennis M. Reboletti……….  9    105  Shane Cultra…………………  2    46  David Koehler……………………….  33 47  Patricia R. Bellock………….  1    106  Keith P. Sommer……………  2    47  John M. Sullivan……………………  16 48  Michael Connelly..………….  4    107  John Cavaletto…….………..  17    48  Randall M. Hultgren……………….  5 49  Timothy L. Schmitz………..  6    108  David Reis…………………….  17    49  Deanna Demuzio…………………..  18 50  Kay Hatcher………….………  3    109  Roger L. Eddy……………….  7    50  Larry K. Bomke……………………..  23 51  Ed Sullivan, Jr………………..  4    110  Chapin Rose………………….  9    51  Frank C. Watson……………………  16 52  Mark H. Beaubien, Jr………  0    111  Daniel V. Beiser……………..  10    52  Michael W. Frerichs……………….  19 53  Sidney H. Mathias………….  1    112  Jay C. Hoffman……………..  13    53  Dan Rutherford…………………….  4 54  Suzanne Bassi……………….  8    113  Thomas Holbrook………….  11    54  John O. Jones……………………….  34 55  Harry R. Ramey, Jr…………  0    114  Eddie Lee Jackson Jr..…….  7    55  Dale A. Righter……………………..  16 56  Paul D. Froehlich……………  3    115  Mike Bost……………………..  10    56  William R. Haine……………………  23 57  Elaine Nekritz……………….  1    116  Dan Reitz……………………..  8    57  James F. Clayborne, Jr……………  18 58  Karen May……………………  3    117  John E. Bradley……………..  18    58  David Luechtefeld…………………  18 59  Kathleen A. Ryg…………….  7    118  Brandon W. Phelps……......  16    59  Gary Forby…………………..……...  34 

Page 15